IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the direction for regularization of the respondent's service in terms of the memorandum dated 18.02.2004, despite the subsequent OMs, and dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

BUDI HABUNG, J.

1. Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional AG, Nagaland for the appellants and Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This inter court appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/61/2020 and the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Review Petition no. 03/2023. By the said impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2022, the learned Single Judge directed for regularization of the Ad-hoc service of the writ petitioner/respondent herein in terms of the Office Memorandum No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 18.02.2004. And by an order dated 31.10.2023, the Review Petition No. 03/2023 filed against the said judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 has been dismissed.

3. The fact leading to the filling of the present appeal in brief is that the respondent was appointed as Ad-hoc Teacher under the establishment of Deputy Inspector of School, Mokokchung vide order dated 29.04.1998. And since then, her service on Ad-hoc basis has been extended from time to time.

4. By the Office Memorandum No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 18.02.2004 (for short OM hereinafter), the Government of Nagaland framed criteria for regularization of contract/adhoc appointments. As per category-1(b) of the said OM, the employees having 5-10 years of service can be considered for regularization provided that there is a sanctioned post and the employee fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post including; requisite educational qualification and further the performance of the employee is satisfactory. In terms of the said provision of OM, the Directorate of School Education published a list of 339 Ad-hoc/contract Government Teachers who had completed 5-10 years of services as on 16.01.2004 to appear for eligibility test. In the said list, the name of the Respondent has been shown at serial No. 260 and the Respondent was informed to appear for the test on 13.07.2005. The contract service of the respondent was not regularised.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondent/writ petitioner filed WP(C)/61/2020 before this Court. The contention of the respondent/writ petitioner in writ petition was that although she had appeared for the test on the given date; but her service has not been regularized, while all the candidates who were called for the same test were either regularized vide order dated 04.12.2009 or vide order dated 08.06.2011. Hence, prayed for direction for regularization of her service w.e.f. the date of her initial appointment i.e. 29.04.1998 as had been done in the case of other similarly situated teachers who appeared the eligibility test held in July 2005 and also in accordance with Rule 14 (4) (b) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009). The said Act Rule 14(4) (b) provides that the teachers appointed on Ad-hoc/temporary basis prior to the Act, shall be regularized as notified by the P&AR, Government of Nagaland from time-to-time w.e.f. the date of first appointment.

6. The respondent State filed affidavit and maintained that the appearance of the writ petitioner for the eligibility test conducted on 13.07.2005 was not available on record; and therefore, her service was not regularized. It also contended that the OM dated 18.02.2004 has already been superseded by a subsequent OM dated 23.08.2007 and 04.08.2008. Hence, the case of the petitioner/respondent herein cannot be considered under the OM dated 18.02.2004.

7. After consideration and upon hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of the OM dated 18.02.2004 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. It was also made clear that the said order should not be treated as a precedent in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner has been found to be left out at the relevant time,